How Far Must an Astronaut Be Above Earth to Weigh 0.01 of His Earth Weight?

AI Thread Summary
To achieve a weight of 0.01 of an astronaut's weight on Earth's surface, calculations indicate that the astronaut must be approximately 57382 km above the Earth's surface. The initial answer of 1.93x10^5 km was found to be incorrect. The correct approach involves using the gravitational formula and ensuring proper unit handling, particularly incorporating Earth's gravitational acceleration. The final distance from the Earth's center is about 63760 km, requiring a subtraction of Earth's radius for the altitude above the surface. The discussion concludes that the provided answer in the textbook is erroneous.
Vipul
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Gravity question

Homework Statement


Calculate how far an astronaut would need to be away above the Earth in order for his weight to be 0.01 his weight on the Earth's surface.


Homework Equations


g = GM/r^2
F = GMm/r^2

The Attempt at a Solution


I have no correct way to solve this. However the answer is 1.93x10^5 Km

Would anyone please kindly show how the answer is worked out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Weight on the Earth surface proportional to g, where g=GM/r^2 where r is the radius of the Earth and comes out to about 9.81m/sec^2. Try it. Now set 0.01*g=GM/r^2 and solve for the new r.
 
I made 'r' the subject of the equation and end up with 1.99x10^5km
Here is my working

g = GM/r^2
r^2 = GM/0.01
r^2 = (6.67x10^-11 x 5.974x10^24) / 0.01
r^2 = 3.984658x10^16
r = \sqrt{3.984658x10^16}
r = 199616081.5m = 1.99x10^5km

Please correct me.
 
i) you are paying absolutely no attention to units. ii) I think the answer you have been given is also quite wrong. What you want is 0.01*GM/(r_earth^2)=GM/r^2. That means r=10*r_earth. How far above the Earth you have to be is a somewhat different question but that's 10*r_earth-r_earth=9*r_earth. I don't know where this 1.93*10^5 km is coming from. Sorry.
 
Dick is right on all points here.
Dick said:
i) you are paying absolutely no attention to units.

Vipul said:
g = GM/r^2
r^2 = GM/0.01
The denominator on the right-hand side should be 0.01*9.80665 m/s^2 here, not just 0.01. That 0.01 is a unitless scale factor.
Vipul said:
r^2 = (6.67x10^-11 x 5.974x10^24) / 0.01
If you had paid attention to units you would have been able to see that this expression is invalid. With units (but keeping that scale factor unitless), the expression becomes
r^2 = 6.673*10^{-11} \mathrm{m}^3/\mathrm{s}^2/\mathrm{kg}<br /> * 5.9742*10^{24} \mathrm{kg}/0.01
The expression on the left-hand side has dimensions length squared. The expression on the right-hand side has units m^3/s^2, which does not jibe with length squared. The culprit is that naked scale factor. It should be paired with Earth standard gravitational acceleration:
r^2 = 6.673*10^{-11} \mathrm{m}^3/\mathrm{s}^2/\mathrm{kg}<br /> * 5.9742*10^{24} \mathrm{kg}/<br /> (0.01*9.80665 \mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2)
Now the right-hand side has units of square meters, matching the dimensions of the left-hand side.

Carrying this through yields r=63760km. This is the distance from the center of the Earth, not the surface of the Earth. You need to subtract the radius of the Earth, 6378km, to get the answer to the question.

Dick said:
ii) I think the answer you have been given is also quite wrong. What you want is 0.01*GM/(r_earth^2)=GM/r^2. That means r=10*r_earth. How far above the Earth you have to be is a somewhat different question but that's 10*r_earth-r_earth=9*r_earth.
This is a much easier way to arrive at the result. 10r=63780km to four decimal places, which differs from the more convoluted result by 20 km.

Dick said:
I don't know where this 1.93*10^5 km is coming from. Sorry.
The 1.93*10^5 km answer is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
Alright, go it; i got 63760km which is from the surface of the earth. Subtracting 63760km - 6378km gives me 57382km.

AS Dick said, the answer given is quite wrong, so the answer at the back of the book must be incorrect.

Thank you very much, much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top